Here's the verbatim answer from Horowitz when asked about changes to the IG report:

"We followed normal processes, we took comments, we made decisions on issuing the final report - it was not made weaker or softer in any regard"

HE DID NOT SAY "No changes were made". He basically said the content and findings of the report were not affected by the process of changes, redactions etc.

I think Q has been telling us the changes/redactions RR made were changes that made HIM look bad, but didn't affect the actual report findings.

Let's speculate to show an example of what I mean:

We still don't know why the "We'll stop him" text magically appeared out of nowhere in May of this past year. What if RR is redacting/changing parts of the report that would lead congressional oversight to eventually find out he had a part in holding back the text from either Horowitz or Mueller? The damning text is in the report so the report wasn't technically made weaker by leaving out the specifics of how it popped up. It just might be bad for RR down the line.

>>1801947

That's fine as I said I was speculating.

The example was meant to illustrate how RR's changes might not be damning as far as the report's "strength" goes. Instead, maybe his changes were meant to cover up some of his footprints in the snow.

>>1801727

FOR FUCKS SAKE HE DIDN't SAY THAT. HERE'S WHAT HE SAID VERBATIM:

"We followed normal processes, we took comments, we made decisions on issuing the final report - it was not made weaker or softer in any regard" See my posts below:

>>1801929

>>1801929